Author
Topic: Women in combat? (Read 5741 times)

Just curious--is everyone who speaks up for what they feel to be women's rights a "bra burner"? Here I thought that was a 70s or 60s term. Kind of like "uppity Negros." I thought we'd grown past both of them.

As for your original question, I have no opinion on it whatsoever, having no experience with the military at all.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

it is a term from then and it applies to the decisions made. that's exactly the generation and background these women came out of. you have made a typical knee jerk leap. i have no problem with people speaking up for rights, although i don't think that women, blacks, disabled, etc. should have any different rights than the rest of us.

bra burners fit into the same category as minority and gay activists. they are not satisfied with equality, or the logic of a thing. they must have special consideration and everyone MUST accept them, and what they do.

there is a difference.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I for one loved the bra burning era until my sister decided to do it an go unshaven for a while...EWWW. She's a dyke now. I don't mean she's gay or anything...she just tends to retain water. :-D

Scott

Logged

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Typical knee-jerk reaction from a liberal. If a name develops a stigma, change it. Change queer to gay. Change retard to special needs. Change liberal to.....blah, blah, blah.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

Iddee, the point is not changing names. The point is most people in this era don't consider it to be that groundbreaking to ask for equal opportunities for people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. I didn't realize that was a "bra-burning" concept at this stage of American history.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

Equal, in my opinion, is NOT 12% of the populace receiving 50% of the benefits, and a different 12% supplying 85% of the benefits.

Equal is NOT allowing any far out actions and denying 2000 year old accepted habits.

Equal is NOT demanding freedom to do what you want, but forbidding me the freedom to do what the constitution gave me the right to do.

A word is just a sound made by the human vocal cords. If it has a negative connotation to it, there is likely a reason for it. A new name will only need time until it also will have the same connotation. What then, change it again??

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

Iddee, the point is not changing names. The point is most people in this era don't consider it to be that groundbreaking to ask for equal opportunities for people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. I didn't realize that was a "bra-burning" concept at this stage of American history.

first you (the liberal) decide a term is derogatory then you demand that we all bend to your will and change our language.

i don't consider it groundbreaking to have equal opportunity. it is what we are all about. i do consider it destructive to demand special consideration based on race, gender, or who you sleep with. it is also destructive to demand equality in places where equality is not practical or is destructive.

since we are talking about the military, the military is not an equal opportunity employer. they discriminate against people all the time based on age, weight, height, and ability. they do this because the only consideration in what the military does, should be the good of the military. when you put that aside so that you can punch some agenda card for some congress person who never served...and never would, you have damaged the institution. but hey, who cares as long as you can have "equality".

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

"""Iddee, the point is not changing names. The point is most people in this era don't consider it to be that groundbreaking to ask for equal opportunities for people,"""

Looks to me like it is the topic you posted on.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

i don't consider it groundbreaking to have equal opportunity. it is what we are all about. i do consider it destructive to demand special consideration based on race, gender, or who you sleep with. it is also destructive to demand equality in places where equality is not practical or is destructive.

In the general world (nonmilitary), people are always asking for the same thing everyone else--marriage for gays, equal pay for women doing the same job as men, college admittance for blacks.

Quote

since we are talking about the military, the military is not an equal opportunity employer. they discriminate against people all the time based on age, weight, height, and ability. they do this because the only consideration in what the military does, should be the good of the military. when you put that aside so that you can punch some agenda card for some congress person who never served...and never would, you have damaged the institution. but hey, who cares as long as you can have "equality".

In the context of the military, I would totally agree. I think if you can do the job, do it regardless of sex, race, etc. If you can't, you can't, regardless of the same.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

marriage for gays, equal pay for women doing the same job as men, college admittance for blacks.

state issue, already law, and my favorite....special consideration because of race? i think not, but they get it. how demeaning that must be to have people look at you and wonder if you earned your position/entrance, or got it because you are black.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I don't know about "special" consideration, but I bet when a society is transitioning from any type of discrimination to equality, there are plenty of "special situations" until that transition is complete and they are no longer necessary.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

There is a big difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. padding the way for someone is not equal opportunity. many times we try to lower all outcomes to the lowest common denominator ,such as punishing acheivers.

but I bet when a society is transitioning from any type of discrimination to equality, there are plenty of "special situations" until that transition is complete and they are no longer necessary.

some examples?

if you have created the laws and the environment for equal opportunity...even if you have had to force it as we did in some places, why, then, do you need special considerations to make up for past unfairness? you can't ever make up for a past mistake this way, but you sure can created new generations of resentment. how is that helpful to the person who really only want an equal chance? the taint of special consideration colors all.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

.......... The point is most people in this [the bra burning] era don't consider it to be that groundbreaking to ask for equal opportunities for people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation...

What the bra burners you referenced actually believe in, is not equal rights for women but outcomes equal to those men enjoy. Never mind whether the bra burners can earn these rewards with the amount of effort, that they are capable of or willing to make.

What you seem to advocate is not equal rights for women but rather an illegitimate or sexists form of Marxism/Socialism. To Whit: "From each according to her ability and to each according to to her needs."That was the whole premise of the late Equal Rights Amendment, equality of outcome with out equality of effort.

It is intresting to note that the Democrat Party never got behind the ERA because of Trade Union opposition and that the Democrat Party infact attacked the ERA as a feel good peace of make work legislation intended only to benefit upper middle class Republican women.

Kingbee, it helps if you preserve quotes instead of changing them. Here's what I actually said:

"The point is most people in this era don't consider it to be that groundbreaking to ask for equal opportunities for people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. I didn't realize that was a "bra-burning" concept at this stage of American history."

"This era" meaning TODAY.

Please tell me how "outcomes equal to those men enjoy" is a problem? Are you telling me women cannot work as smart or as hard as men? Perhaps that's your experience in life, but it certainly has not been mine.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

because equal outcome can only be achieved by external (government) manipulation. equal outcome should never be the goal unless you want the government dictating to you what you can and can't do, can and can't earn, can and can't hire.....you know, like they try to do now??

the idea of leveling the playing field is complete garbage. it can't be done, but in the attempt, the economy and various institutions can be destroyed. what you can do, and what we have done, and have laws to protect, is make sure the starting block is level. that does not mean giving preference for hiring, entrance to schools, having quotas for companies that bid on government jobs, etc.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

MOST jobs I can think of, men and women can both do equally well with equal outcomes.

no they can't. even if they do equally well, and are paid the same, the outcome will be different. and that's assuming that they do equally well. that never happens. someone is always going to do better than another even in the same job.

i you have ever worked in an organization or office with both men and women, you know the truth of this.

any time my husband is asked to work more hours, i know exactly who didn't show up, needs time off, has sick kids......that's fine. i want women to take care of their kids. i'd like them to stay home and take care of their kids. BUT if you are going be off work because of kid issues, don't expect to be paid for it. you become one of those people who earns less because you made a choice.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....